From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 03/16/01-03:13:43 PM Z
Message-ID: <8C610D86AF6CD4119C9800B0D0499E331A6F3C@red.nane.netapp.com> From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com> Subject: RE: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:13:43 -0800 Mike Eisler writes: > Dave Noveck writes: > > > > I'm not sure I've ever had a customer complaint about appends not > > > working. > > > > Alright. We don't have to tell them to stop complaining because > > they know that complaining is useless. A basic protocol problem > > like that cannot be solved in any time frame that a customer > > If there was a way to solve this problem in > existing framework that NFS uses, I'd be on the bandwagon. If there was a way to solve it within that framework, it would already have been done, in V3 and we'd be using it now. > > cares about. He'll just do something else, besides using NFS, > > I mean. > > What will he use besides NFS? Right now, contrive to do it on local disk, somehow. Post-process multiple log files to merge them or something. > NFS fails to support a long list of esoterica from UNIX local file > access model. Do we really have to or want to fix them all? I don't want to support stuff that is esoterica. The question is whether multiple processes appending to a log file belongs in that class. I don't think it does. That is why people keep trying to solve it. The problem isn't that it is an esoteric feature that nobody wants. It is that it is difficult feature to implement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:48:41 AM Z CST